Court Sets Aside Impugned Orders Favoring Petitioner, Emphasizing Article 226 Jurisdiction Despite Alternate Remedies.

The HC disposed of the writ petition in favor of the petitioner, setting aside the impugned orders dated 12.03.2021 and 31.01.2021. The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226, despite the availability of an alternate remedy, as the issue was previously adjudicated and facts were undisputed. The pending application was also closed.

---

---

Issues:
1. Consideration of an alternate remedy in a writ petition.
2. Jurisdiction of the Court to entertain an action despite the availability of an alternate remedy.
3. Setting aside of impugned orders based on previous judgment.
4. Disposal of the writ petition.

Issue 1: Consideration of an alternate remedy in a writ petition
The petitioner argued that the issue in the present petition was covered by a previous judgment. The respondent acknowledged this but suggested the petitioner could opt for an alternate remedy. The Court noted that an alternate remedy is a self-imposed limitation by the Court and does not bar the Court from entertaining an action if it has jurisdiction. Citing legal precedents, the Court emphasized that even when facts are disputed, a writ Court can still entertain an action. Therefore, the Court was not inclined to reject the petition solely based on the availability of an alternate remedy.

Issue 2: Jurisdiction of the Court to entertain an action despite the availability of an alternate remedy
The Court highlighted that the availability of an alternate remedy does not prevent the Court from exercising its jurisdiction if it chooses to do so. In this case, as the issue raised was already covered by a previous judgment and there was no dispute regarding the facts, the Court saw no purpose in relegating the petitioner to an alternate forum. The Court referred to legal principles emphasizing that the power to issue writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary and not limited by the availability of an alternate remedy.

Issue 3: Setting aside of impugned orders based on previous judgment
The Court set aside the impugned orders dated 12.03.2021 and 31.01.2021, as the issue raised in the present petition was already covered by a previous judgment. The Court found no purpose in upholding the impugned orders when the facts were undisputed and the issue had already been addressed in a previous case.

Issue 4: Disposal of the writ petition
Ultimately, the Court disposed of the writ petition in favor of the petitioner based on the considerations mentioned above. The pending application was also closed as a result of the judgment. The Court's decision was influenced by the previous judgment covering the same issue and the lack of purpose in pursuing an alternate remedy when the facts were clear and undisputed.

---